get_cycle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by noting the output is normalized and excludes notes, symptoms, and raw day logs, but it does not explain what 'normalized' means, how date selection affects results, or any data-availability caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core semantics of what is returned and what is excluded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, so return-value documentation is not required. However, the missing date semantics and lack of usage guidance leave some ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly, especially when a specific date is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single optional 'date' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description does not mention date at all. The agent is given no guidance about accepted formats, default behavior, or what null means, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource, 'normalized cycle phase/timing', and explicitly states what is omitted ('without notes, symptoms, or raw day logs'). This identifies the tool's function clearly, though it does not directly differentiate from the listed siblings since none target cycle data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The exclusions imply a summary use case, but no sibling or alternative tool is named and no contextual conditions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.